Psychometric Properties of the DUKE Health Profile-adolescent Version (DHP-A): A Generic Instrument for Adolescents
- 164 Downloads
Purpose: Quality of life in general population of adolescents has been scarcely documented. The study was aimed at evaluating the psychometric properties of the DUKE Health Profile-Adolescent version (DHP-A), an adaptation from the adult version.Material and method: Feasibility and construct validity were assessed in a sample of 618 adolescents from school settings. Test–retest reliability was assessed in another sample of 100 adolescents at 2 weeks interval. Construct validity was assessed in groups by gender, age and existence of a health problem.Results: The DHP-A, a short instrument of HRQOL, easy to administer, proved its ability to discriminate between boys and girls, with or without a health problem, for all of health and dysfunction dimensions (p < 0.05). Its reliability is also acceptable for three health dimensions and anxiety, depression (ICC = 0.68–0.72), moderate for social, perceived health, self-esteem and pain (ICC = 0.43–0.59), and debatable for disability (ICC = 0.22) (single item). Conclusion: The initial testing of the adolescent version (DHP-A) indicates that the psychometric properties are acceptable and will provide a useful tool for the assessment of health status in adolescents. Three single-item dimensions (perceived health, pain and disability) should be interpreted with caution.
KeywordsAdolescent Duke Health profile Health Status Health Related Quality of life Reliability Validity
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- 1.Bowling A. Measuring Health: A Review of Quality of Life Measurement Scales. Open University Press, 1992.Google Scholar
- 3.Simion, MC 1999Evaluation of the quality of life in children and adolescentsPress Med2810331039Google Scholar
- 8.Orley J, Kuyken W. Quality of life assessment: International Perspectives. In: WHO (ed.), The Development of the World Health Organization Quality of Life Assessment Instrument (the WHOQOL). 1994: 41–57.Google Scholar
- 9.Chwalow, AJ, Lurie, A, Bean, K, et al. 1992A French version of the Sickness Impact Profile (SIP): stages in the cross cultural validation of a generic quality of life scaleFundam Clin Pharmacol619326Google Scholar
- 13.Guillemin, F, Arènes, J, Virion, JM 1997Santé et qualité de vieBaudier, FArènes, J eds. Baromètre santé adultes 95/96CFESParis6983Google Scholar
- 14.Arene J, Gautier A. Environnement et qualite de vie des jeunes. In: Comité français d’éducation pour la santé CFES (ed.), Barometre sante Jeunes 97/98. Paris: CFES, 1998: 33–68.Google Scholar
- 15.Guilbert, P, Baudier, F, Gautier, A 2001Barometre Sante 2000. Comite Francaise d’Education pour la Sante CFESBarometreParisGoogle Scholar
- 17.Parkerson GR, Jr. User’s guide for Duke Health Measures. Duke University Medical Center, 1999.Google Scholar
- 20.Ware, JE, Snow, K, Kosinski, M, Gandek, B 1993SF-36 Health survey manual and interpretation guideThe Health Institute, New England Medical CenterBoston, MAGoogle Scholar